| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
TLDR: basically Trump lies more than any other president we've ever seen and uses it as a strategy because it worked in the business world. The problem it is it undermines a representative democracy and is the preferred weapon of authoritarians. Undermining the press when they tell the truth is beyond damgerous. And that, not calling out real fake news, is obviously Trump's real strategy. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On January 29 2017 03:05 LegalLord wrote: Such a unity is illusory at best. The center-left "Hillary wing" and the left "Bernie wing" are no less at odds with each other than they were before Trump was such a pervasive factor. If they really were ready to unite against Trump then there wouldn't be such a mass defection in the face of the possibility of a Trump presidency, back during election time. It doesn't have to be fully united. The GOP and the Tea Party managed to do it while hating each other. They just need to motivate people enough to do the very simple thing of oppose Trump. Republicans did it against Obama, even when they disliked each other but they both could get around cock blocking Obama. Just need greater numbers of people participating (IE voting and doing more then just bitching on the internet). | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On January 29 2017 03:05 LegalLord wrote: Such a unity is illusory at best. The center-left "Hillary wing" and the left "Bernie wing" are no less at odds with each other than they were before Trump was such a pervasive factor. If they really were ready to unite against Trump then there wouldn't be such a mass defection in the face of the possibility of a Trump presidency, back during election time. First of all, no one thought Trump being president was possible. Second, most people assumed he would be a very neutered version if anything. Your analysis is way off here. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 29 2017 03:14 On_Slaught wrote: NYT put out a pretty bad looking article for Trump this morning about Trump's lying (on phone otherwise would link it). This morning he had another Twitter Tantrum lashing out at the NYT, so my guess is he read it before it was put on their website. TLDR: basically Trump lies more than any other president we've ever seen and uses it as a strategy because it worked in the business world. The problem it is it undermines a representative democracy and is the preferred weapon of authoritarians. Undermining the press when they tell the truth is beyond damgerous. And that, not calling out real fake news, is obviously Trump's real strategy. People claiming Trump is playing 7D chess with the media are ignoring his history of lying. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On January 29 2017 03:31 Slaughter wrote: It doesn't have to be fully united. The GOP and the Tea Party managed to do it while hating each other. They just need to motivate people enough to do the very simple thing of oppose Trump. Republicans did it against Obama, even when they disliked each other but they both could get around cock blocking Obama. Just need greater numbers of people participating (IE voting and doing more then just bitching on the internet). and obama had a pretty solid approval rating overall. meanwhile, trump is starting off about 40%, which was about obama's floor (according to gallup). | ||
|
oBlade
United States5583 Posts
There wasn't very much terrorism of any variety in 1975-2000 or since 2002 in terms of the death toll. To conclude an average trend from 1975 is a descriptor of the potential risk of terrorism from 2017 on seems to be a case of Russell's turkey as it's failing to consider that circumstances may have changed in the interim. That aside, the issue of "unauthorized" (Vox editor standards for "illegal" I assume?) immigrants is about much more than terrorism, which is only one of the many bad things in the world. So if "national security" to someone only means "terrorism," then no, it's not simply about national security. There's also violent crime and drugs (the whole cartel thing), the economic/societal impact, and just the rule of law. National policy should be a little more nuanced than counting up the record of terrorism deaths (I'm sure Cato's methods are fine although I haven't looked) and noticing it's low, because that's almost inherent to the concept itself. The entire implication here seems like a strawman. You could for the sake of argument have a system of unlimited refugees and unlimited illegal immigrants, then someone comes out against it for unspecified reasons, and an online paper suggests not enough people have died of terrorism yet for the policy to deserve a second look. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 29 2017 03:31 Mohdoo wrote: First of all, no one thought Trump being president was possible. Second, most people assumed he would be a very neutered version if anything. Your analysis is way off here. In Trump having no chance for president: speak for yourself. Everyone outside of the Sam Wang PhD and NYT circlejerk realized that there was a genuine possibility of Trump winning - and the stars just so happened to align in his favor. I'm sure some people thought he'd revert to the GOP status quo. To Trump's credit he seems to be doing exactly what he promised. There was no love lost for Trump among any of the left-leaning base. It's just that even he wasn't a compelling enough reason to rally behind an ungodly electable Hillary. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 29 2017 03:14 On_Slaught wrote: NYT put out a pretty bad looking article for Trump this morning about Trump's lying (on phone otherwise would link it). This morning he had another Twitter Tantrum lashing out at the NYT, so my guess is he read it before it was put on their website. TLDR: basically Trump lies more than any other president we've ever seen and uses it as a strategy because it worked in the business world. The problem it is it undermines a representative democracy and is the preferred weapon of authoritarians. Undermining the press when they tell the truth is beyond damgerous. And that, not calling out real fake news, is obviously Trump's real strategy. I have yet to see one article of serious self-reflection from any MSM/legacy news outlet that discusses and acknowledges their role in allowing Trump to thrive in this environment. This suggests to me that they will continue to be ineffective in the face of Trump's onslaught. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
China: War with US becoming practical reality | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:08 LegalLord wrote: In Trump having no chance for president: speak for yourself. Everyone outside of the Sam Wang PhD and NYT circlejerk realized that there was a genuine possibility of Trump winning - and the stars just so happened to align in his favor. I'm sure some people thought he'd revert to the GOP status quo. To Trump's credit he seems to be doing exactly what he promised. There was no love lost for Trump among any of the left-leaning base. It's just that even he wasn't a compelling enough reason to rally behind an ungodly electable Hillary. I don't think I know a single person IRL who thought Trump had a sliver of a chance. A lot of people felt like they had the freedom to pat themselves on the back by not voting for Clinton because they wouldn't get Trump anyway. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44316 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:08 xDaunt wrote: I have yet to see one article of serious self-reflection from any MSM/legacy news outlet that discusses and acknowledges their role in allowing Trump to thrive in this environment. This suggests to me that they will continue to be ineffective in the face of Trump's onslaught. What do you mean by ineffective? They're effective at fact-checking Trump and calling him out on his lies; do you mean that they're ineffective at changing the minds of Trump supporters? Because if that's what you're assessing, how do you propose that news sources change the minds of Trump supporters if news sources also have an obligation to tell the truth? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:05 oBlade wrote: There wasn't very much terrorism of any variety in 1975-2000 or since 2002 in terms of the death toll. To conclude an average trend from 1975 is a descriptor of the potential risk of terrorism from 2017 on seems to be a case of Russell's turkey as it's failing to consider that circumstances may have changed in the interim. That aside, the issue of "unauthorized" (Vox editor standards for "illegal" I assume?) immigrants is about much more than terrorism, which is only one of the many bad things in the world. So if "national security" to someone only means "terrorism," then no, it's not simply about national security. There's also violent crime and drugs (the whole cartel thing), the economic/societal impact, and just the rule of law. National policy should be a little more nuanced than counting up the record of terrorism deaths (I'm sure Cato's methods are fine although I haven't looked) and noticing it's low, because that's almost inherent to the concept itself. The entire implication here seems like a strawman. You could for the sake of argument have a system of unlimited refugees and unlimited illegal immigrants, then someone comes out against it for unspecified reasons, and an online paper suggests not enough people have died of terrorism yet for the policy to deserve a second look. I think this article is only countering the refugee policy (Trump's Muslim ban), so Trump's executive order really is only designed to counter terrorism. So even if we went by the death toll from 2002 onwards, the likelihood of dying from terrorism might inch past the likelihood of dying from your clothes catching on fire, but I actually doubt it. The anti-Muslim immigration policy is about the brown Muslim, not national security. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:12 radscorpion9 wrote: Cool (well at least for me) new article from the independent on China-US relations. I was hoping China wouldn't take the rhetoric of Trump too seriously, but it looks like it is. Wow...pretty dangerous stuff. China: War with US becoming practical reality That would be a suicide move for China. Their army may have the numbers, but its nowhere close to US in all other regards. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:12 Mohdoo wrote: I don't think I know a single person IRL who thought Trump had a sliver of a chance. A lot of people felt like they had the freedom to pat themselves on the back by not voting for Clinton because they wouldn't get Trump anyway. In Washington or around the country? In Washington Trump indeed did not have a sliver of a chance. In Ohio, Iowa, etc., that was clearly not the case - no matter how much "the ground game doesn't seem to reflect what the polls say" rationalizing seems to suggest. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: What do you mean by ineffective? They're effective at fact-checking Trump and calling him out on his lies; do you mean that they're ineffective at changing the minds of Trump supporters? Because if that's what you're assessing, how do you propose that news sources change the minds of Trump supporters if news sources also have an obligation to tell the truth? They've been rendered ineffective politically. Sure, the legacy outlets still reach and sway a large number of Americans, but that number is far less than it used to be and is dwindling. Trump's election in spite of the media's outright advocacy for Hillary is proof of it. The problem that the media has is that it still refuses to concede that it has been partial towards the left for decades. I was reading a Politico article this morning that discussed whether it was wise for the media to call Trump a "liar" (the author argued it was counterproductive), and the author continued to peddle this fantasy that legacy media was grounded in journalistic objectivism and political impartiality. I don't expect any rube who mindlessly spouts the phrase "the truth has a liberal bias" to understand, but we on the right are acutely aware of media bias, and have been for decades. If the media wants to take down Trump, they need to authentically move towards the center and actually make an effort to be impartial. In short, they need to regain the trust of some people on the right. Of course, this is never going to happen, which is why I expect that Trump will continue to successfully berate the media and diminish them just as Steve Bannon revealed in his NYT interview last week. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:12 Mohdoo wrote: I don't think I know a single person IRL who thought Trump had a sliver of a chance. A lot of people felt like they had the freedom to pat themselves on the back by not voting for Clinton because they wouldn't get Trump anyway. most people's IRL circle of acquaintances is not highly varied and representative, so best not to rely on it too much. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:26 xDaunt wrote: If the media wants to take down Trump, they need to authentically move towards the center and actually make an effort to be impartial. In short, they need to regain the trust of some people on the right. Of course, this is never going to happen, which is why I expect that Trump will continue to successfully berate the media and diminish them just as Steve Bannon revealed in his NYT interview last week. The problem is that in order to regain a meaningful amount of public good will, moving just toward center wouldn't be good enough. There's too much skepticism and lack of trust that's already built up over the years. Just "authentically moving toward the center" wouldn't change enough people's minds, so instead they'll just keep on doing what they've always been doing. On January 29 2017 04:08 LegalLord wrote: I'm sure some people thought he'd revert to the GOP status quo. To Trump's credit he seems to be doing exactly what he promised. I was one of those people, and to be honest, I have no idea what I'm supposed to feel about the fact that he's actually keeping to some of the more insane things he promised. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:35 TheYango wrote: The problem is that in order to regain a meaningful amount of public good will, moving just toward center wouldn't be good enough. There's too much skepticism and lack of trust that's already built up over the years. Just "authentically moving toward the center" wouldn't change enough people's minds, so instead they'll just keep on doing what they've always been doing. I was one of those people, and to be honest, I have no idea what I'm supposed to feel about the fact that he's actually keeping to some of the more insane things he promised. feel unsurpised. despite the memes ot the contrary, politicians do generally keep their promises, or at least seriously try to (obviously some even if they push very hard on it they can't get enough support to make them happen, as they're not dictators). there's been some careful research to look at that, though I don't have the links or citations offhand. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 29 2017 04:39 zlefin wrote: despite the memes ot the contrary, politicians do generally keep their promises, or at least seriously try to (obviously some even if they push very hard on it they can't get enough support to make them happen, as they're not dictators). I didn't go in viewing Trump as a politician, which is why I assumed that in the face of pressure and busywork, he'd leave the actual policymaking to people who actually have some amount of experience doing that. That he isn't is...concerning to me. Admittedly, it's still early, and there's definitely time for him to do that anyway. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
